Appeal No. 1997-4046 Page 15
Application No. 08/040,117
recited in claim 19, except for the funnel-shaped cavity above
the valve member. We have discussed in the other rejection of
claim 19 the applicable teachings of Pang and Marsoner. For
the reasons expressed there, we reach the same conclusion with
regard to this second rejection, that is, the applied prior art
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter of these claims, and we therefore will
sustain this rejection of claims 19-27.
In addition to having been rejected as being anticipated
by Niehaus, claims 29, 31 and 32 have alternatively been
rejected as being unpatentable over Niehaus. Claim 29 depends
from claim 28, and we determined above when dealing with the
Section 102 rejection of claim 28 that it was anticipated by
Niehaus. Claim 29 adds the requirement that the length of the
pump be less than 10 feet. While Niehaus does not disclose
that the pump should be of any particular length, it does teach
that the capacity of the pump can be changed by changing the
length of the bladder (column 9, lines 7-14). The appellants
have not argued that the claimed dimension is critical, much
less provided evidence thereof, and thus we are of the view
that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to make
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007